Search

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

397 questions · 449 findings · 37 reviews · Dental caries · related questions CL0289

No studies found 39 · 8.7%GRADE not reported 245 · 54.6%Very low 72 · 16%Low 42 · 9.4%Moderate 51 · 11.4%High 0 · 0%

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs IRM (intermediate restorative material)

Outcome not reported · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Non-extraction (retained first permanent molar) or contralateral non-extraction side

Spontaneous space closure · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar is followed by variable spontaneous closure of the post-extraction space (about 45.5% to 85.2% of cases); certainty was not GRADE-rated (Shekelle category III).

1 finding from 1 review

Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

It is very uncertain whether total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive changes radiological failure compared with non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) + sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

It is very uncertain whether self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive changes radiological failure compared with total-etching 36% phosphoric acid + acetone-based total-etch adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Biodentine vs Propolis

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Biodentine showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with propolis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Acetone-based total-etch adhesive

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

It is very uncertain whether non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive changes radiological failure compared with acetone-based total-etch adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina; In-Ceram Zirconia) vs Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia; Denzir)

Bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina;… changes bridge complications compared with metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal… (very low certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) needing a three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review
  • No comparative data were presented with regard to aesthetics. Aesthetics evaluated by the patient was reported dichotomously (yes/no) in the trial but no between-group estimate was presented.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) vs Metal implant abutments (titanium)

Abutment failure · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) changes abutment failure compared with metal implant abutments (titanium) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes cantilevered bridge complications compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review